Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, I am not talking about the libertarian party. I am talking about "little" l libertarians. They DO NOT vote to the right as a generality because they are not right on several issues. You will find that on moral issues they can and do sometimes align with the left. Things like abortion where libertarians are pretty well split
I disagree in that I don't see how anyone remotely libertarian would believe that validation of gays by government is relevant. It's like a Nazi soldier wanting Churchill to validate he should be promoted.gay marriage where they are more likely left (or like Kat who has said the government should not even be involved with marriage at all)
or drugs or a whole host of other issues.
You claim to be a libertarian but to be honest I have always seen you as on the right because you seem to support the entire notion that the government should enforce morality, a concept that is complaints counter to libertarian thought. I might be incorrect on that assertion but I thought you responded as much on the thread I created on that very subject. The defining difference I see with many libertarians is that they almost universally reject the idea that government should enforce morality when the left AND the right think it should (just their version of morality).
Yes, most are simply because government forcing anything is against libertarian thought in general.I think most libertarians are pro-choice, though I do agree there are hard core libertarians who are pro-life.
And I have placed my arguments on here before on this subject. You're analogy could not be further from the truth. I actually agree with the premise that government should not be in the marriage business at all BUT that is not the current case. Instead, the government gives special consideration for one subset of people. Opposition to gay marriage without changing that reality only serves to ensure that status quo remains in effect. I will not support the government continuing excluding one subset of people without cause just because the ideal is not in existence. If government is going to recognize marriage (and the FACT is that it does) then it needs to do so across the board (as long as consent is possible an mutual). Further, government will NOT get out of marriage suddenly from where we are at now. I belive that your stance only ensures the status quo until the end of time (or more correctly the end of the nation). Allowing gay marriage and further recognitions down the road is the only way to move this back where it belongs (the personal realm). In essence, when everyone gains a "benefit" them no one does and people will finally realize how asinine asking for government to recognize your relationship really is.I disagree in that I don't see how anyone remotely libertarian would believe that validation of gays by government is relevant. It's like a Nazi soldier wanting Churchill to validate he should be promoted.
No, I am not talking about the libertarian party. I am talking about "little" l libertarians. They DO NOT vote to the right as a generality because they are not right on several issues. You will find that on moral issues they can and do sometimes align with the left. Things like abortion where libertarians are pretty well split, gay marriage where they are more likely left (or like Kat who has said the government should not even be involved with marriage at all) or drugs or a whole host of other issues.You are speaking of Libertarians with a capitol "L" though. I am about as libertarian (little "L") as it gets and there is nothing 'left' about me as we understand 'left' in modern vernacular. The problem is that we get tripped up in definitions and start using them as slurs and insults instead of descriptive terms to identify an ideology without having to type out what we mean every time we use a term. And obviously we don't all agree on the definitions.
For me 'libertarian' - lower case "L" - is the Founders' philosophy. A central government strictly restricted via the Constitution to specific assigned tasks. And those tasks are essentially meant to secure our unalienable rights, to enable the various states to function as one nation, and otherwise to leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have.
That is also the basic emphasis of the original grass roots Tea Party movement. It was/is a pure libertarian (little "L") movement. The TP doesn't give a flying fig whether a person has an "R" or "D" after his/her name so long as his/her track record, intent, motives, and vision fit the libertarian mold. (The TP probably doesn't use the term 'libertarian' to describe themselves but that is what they are describing just the same.)
You are quite right that Republicans in Washington are more left than right and they are taking us to hell in a hand basket just as the Democrats are. The only difference is that the GOP represents a constituency made up of a lot of us libertarians and they depend on our votes. So they have to throw us enough bones to keep themselves in office and as a result are taking us to hell more slowly than are the Democrats and maybe are doing a bit less damage in the process.
You claim to be a libertarian but to be honest I have always seen you as on the right because you seem to support the entire notion that the government should enforce morality, a concept that is complaints counter to libertarian thought. I might be incorrect on that assertion but I thought you responded as much on the thread I created on that very subject. The defining difference I see with many libertarians is that they almost universally reject the idea that government should enforce morality when the left AND the right think it should (just their version of morality).
I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.
What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?
That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.
That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!
If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.
It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.
To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.
"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that.
They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital () 'conservatism' meant, as it does now, keeping the old order, which at that time was the hierarchy of clergy and nobility on top, proletariat on the bottom. That was the cart that Liberalism upset with the then-revolutionary concept that "all men are created equal".
Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.
I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.
What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?
That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.
That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!
If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.
It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.
To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.
"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that.
Every libturd in this forum supports Obamacare. Is that your conception of "non-intrusive?" How about Dodd-Frank? How about the CRA? Can you post any example of something liberals support that is "non-intrusive?"
They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital (
Nothing could be more moronic than the spectacle of modern liberals pretending they have something in common with the Founding Fathers. They have far more in common with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.
Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.
You're one of them, Po-po.
Yes, most are simply because government forcing anything is against libertarian thought in general.I think most libertarians are pro-choice, though I do agree there are hard core libertarians who are pro-life.
Yes, most are simply because government forcing anything is against libertarian thought in general.I think most libertarians are pro-choice, though I do agree there are hard core libertarians who are pro-life.
And I have placed my arguments on here before on this subject. You're analogy could not be further from the truth. I actually agree with the premise that government should not be in the marriage business at all BUT that is not the current case. Instead, the government gives special consideration for one subset of people.I disagree in that I don't see how anyone remotely libertarian would believe that validation of gays by government is relevant. It's like a Nazi soldier wanting Churchill to validate he should be promoted.
I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.
What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?
That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.
That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!
If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.
It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.
To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.
"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that.
Every libturd in this forum supports Obamacare. Is that your conception of "non-intrusive?" How about Dodd-Frank? How about the CRA? Can you post any example of something liberals support that is "non-intrusive?"
They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital (
Nothing could be more moronic than the spectacle of modern liberals pretending they have something in common with the Founding Fathers. They have far more in common with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.
Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.
You're one of them, Po-po.
Welcome to USMB Youch. I think you and I are going to get along just fine.
Not only is there a vast wasteland of bad information re definitions of words and philosophies, but there is a failure to teach logic and critical thinking about those words and philosophies. Both language and definitions of words change over time and with usage. "Gay" meant something entirely different to me as a young girl than it means when people use the word now for instance.
And 'liberal' as an ideology in the 18th and 19th Centuries was something almost the polar opposite of what 'liberal' as an ideology is in modern day America. There are even subtle differences in how 'left' and 'right' are used as political descriptions. It was commonly taught to all of us that Nazis and Fascists are rightwing while Communism is leftwing.
From Wikipedia (not my choice of sources but the one I found the quickest that sort of pulled it all together):
There is general agreement that the Left includes: progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists.
There is also general consensus that the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists and fascists.
But if you also understand that modern day American liberalism are the big government and authoritarian government advocates and modern day Conservatism are the small government, individual liberty advocates, it doesn't make sense to include social-authoritarian, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, or fascists on the right. And it doesn't make sense to include autonomists, anti-imperialists, or anarchists on the left.
The Founders for instance, were to a man libertarian (small "L") or as defined in their day simply 'liberal'. They were advocates of no more government than was absolutely necessary to bind the various states together as one nation and secure our rights. And then the government was to leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. They were 100% opposed to any form of monarchy, theocracy, or any other form of authoritarian government at the federal level.
So were they left or right?
I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.
What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?
That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.
That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!
If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.
It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.
To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.
"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that. They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital (
Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.
Welcome to USMB Youch. I think you and I are going to get along just fine.
Not only is there a vast wasteland of bad information re definitions of words and philosophies, but there is a failure to teach logic and critical thinking about those words and philosophies. Both language and definitions of words change over time and with usage. "Gay" meant something entirely different to me as a young girl than it means when people use the word now for instance.
And 'liberal' as an ideology in the 18th and 19th Centuries was something almost the polar opposite of what 'liberal' as an ideology is in modern day America. There are even subtle differences in how 'left' and 'right' are used as political descriptions. It was commonly taught to all of us that Nazis and Fascists are rightwing while Communism is leftwing.
From Wikipedia (not my choice of sources but the one I found the quickest that sort of pulled it all together):
There is general agreement that the Left includes: progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists.
There is also general consensus that the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists and fascists.
But if you also understand that modern day American liberalism are the big government and authoritarian government advocates and modern day Conservatism are the small government, individual liberty advocates, it doesn't make sense to include social-authoritarian, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, or fascists on the right. And it doesn't make sense to include autonomists, anti-imperialists, or anarchists on the left.
The Founders for instance, were to a man libertarian (small "L") or as defined in their day simply 'liberal'. They were advocates of no more government than was absolutely necessary to bind the various states together as one nation and secure our rights. And then the government was to leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. They were 100% opposed to any form of monarchy, theocracy, or any other form of authoritarian government at the federal level.
So were they left or right?
Finally!! Yes!! I know there are many educated and informed people on this forum, but so few seem to post! You get it!! And not a lib on this Board can poke a hole in what you just posted.
I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.
What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?
That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.
That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!
If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.
It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.
To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.
"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that. They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital (
Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.
No. Liberalism does not equal non-intrusive. Every liberal program and leviathan the statists build for themselves takes property away from me. That is intrusive. And since you admit you don't know what the conservatism position is on the subject, let me share it witWhat are libertarians Page 24 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forumh you: the conservative position is to reduce what the government takes (intrusiveness) and instead desires to expand individual liberty. This is the primary Tea Party platform. Gasp! As previously stated, and I think you agreed, the current Republican Party is not represented by conservatives....nay, they undermine the conservative movement....and that it has to be a movement only underscores how radically far left we've "progressed."
Calling a modern leftist a "liberal" is like calling Obamacare "affordable."
And again, no. Conservatism represents what our Founders meant by adherence to our ratified social contract, our Constitution. Read Tocqueville, among others.
For generations, these things were taught in school. They no longer are. And parents don't normally teach their kids this stuff. So, again no, it is not ridiculous to assert that the basis of what people know or don't know is largely a reflection of their formal education, or lack thereof.
Not sure why you keep arguing with me. I am almost always right!!
Yes, most are simply because government forcing anything is against libertarian thought in general.I think most libertarians are pro-choice, though I do agree there are hard core libertarians who are pro-life.
My brother and oldest daughter are two. Their argument is that it's murder, so it's government's job like any other murder. I keep pointing out that it's not murder, it's the mother's body. I don't get how a libertarian can believe government can command a woman to carry another human in her body to term, that seems very unlibertarian to me. However, I can't argue that they are not libertarian, they clearly are. Maybe one day I will get it.
I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.
What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?
That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.
That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!
If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.
It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.
To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.
"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that.
Every libturd in this forum supports Obamacare. Is that your conception of "non-intrusive?" How about Dodd-Frank? How about the CRA? Can you post any example of something liberals support that is "non-intrusive?"
They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital (
Nothing could be more moronic than the spectacle of modern liberals pretending they have something in common with the Founding Fathers. They have far more in common with Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.
Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.
You're one of them, Po-po.
I don't know what the fuck a "libtard" is but I've never "supported Obamacare". Let's start there. Find me any post anywhere any time, or admit you're a liar. Not to mention a sad little boy who can't argue his point.
Try reading the post immediately after hers.
It's a link. Yesterday. Took me ten minutes, nine of which were spent reading her post, because I like to know what I'm talking about before I post.
Uh, yes, it does. What you're trying to do above is conflate leftism with Liberalism. Let's quote the words of our illustrious OP, from another thread:
To the bottom part, yes I agree the RP is not (universally) representing conservatism. It's split. I went over this in detail (most recently) back here. Fair warning: it will require a bit more than the usual 15-second read time investment. This ain't Nosebook we're on.
Alexis de Tocqueville describes 2014 conservatism? Did somebody slip him the keys to the linear time defying machine? The one that the Founders used to take a run to the future store to buy a copy of Das Kapital?
This is one of those times then. Shoulda read that link.
"School", unless your experience was dramatically different from most, doesn't lay a basis for political science. I certainly had no interest in politics at age 17 when I finished HS. That came waaaaaaaay later. If that's the age where you formed yours, well that might essplain a few things.
Say aren't you the same guy who can't keep straight which poster said what? Remember when you apologized for that? That was cool.
Try reading the post immediately after hers.
It's a link. Yesterday. Took me ten minutes, nine of which were spent reading her post, because I like to know what I'm talking about before I post.
I read it. Is the Patriot Act, something that took no rights away from you, all you got to argue with?
Uh, yes, it does. What you're trying to do above is conflate leftism with Liberalism. Let's quote the words of our illustrious OP, from another thread:
Prove "leftism" isn't modern liberalism. You cannot.
To the bottom part, yes I agree the RP is not (universally) representing conservatism. It's split. I went over this in detail (most recently) back here. Fair warning: it will require a bit more than the usual 15-second read time investment. This ain't Nosebook we're on.
What is nosebook?
Alexis de Tocqueville describes 2014 conservatism? Did somebody slip him the keys to the linear time defying machine? The one that the Founders used to take a run to the future store to buy a copy of Das Kapital?
I clearly stated he was describing the time of the founding, our conservative roots born from a struggle from oppression. Go ahead, read and quote it again.
This is one of those times then. Shoulda read that link.
"School", unless your experience was dramatically different from most, doesn't lay a basis for political science. I certainly had no interest in politics at age 17 when I finished HS. That came waaaaaaaay later. If that's the age where you formed yours, well that might essplain a few things.
I find you droll.
Civics and Social Studies used to teach civics and social studies. The Constitution, forms and branches of government. These courses are all but extinct in public schools today. Argue that if you want, but it would be silly. Or, you can keep talking about yourself...or a stranger....
Say aren't you the same guy who can't keep straight which poster said what? Remember when you apologized for that? That was cool.
Yes, I apologized for thinking so little of you that I didn't give much credence. I should not have done that. But that is a non sequitur that is irrelevant to the discussion and proof that maroons spend more time debating posters rather than issues. I'd be more impressed if you went back to Alexis de Tocqueville, our founding, the importance of conservatism, and the inevitable destruction of modern liberalism. But if obsessing over me is your thing, then I can roll with that....
and then want to claim it isn't there. And that's dishonest.
Welcome to USMB Youch. I think you and I are going to get along just fine.
Not only is there a vast wasteland of bad information re definitions of words and philosophies, but there is a failure to teach logic and critical thinking about those words and philosophies. Both language and definitions of words change over time and with usage. "Gay" meant something entirely different to me as a young girl than it means when people use the word now for instance.
And 'liberal' as an ideology in the 18th and 19th Centuries was something almost the polar opposite of what 'liberal' as an ideology is in modern day America. There are even subtle differences in how 'left' and 'right' are used as political descriptions. It was commonly taught to all of us that Nazis and Fascists are rightwing while Communism is leftwing.
From Wikipedia (not my choice of sources but the one I found the quickest that sort of pulled it all together):
There is general agreement that the Left includes: progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists.
There is also general consensus that the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists and fascists.
But if you also understand that modern day American liberalism are the big government and authoritarian government advocates and modern day Conservatism are the small government, individual liberty advocates, it doesn't make sense to include social-authoritarian, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, or fascists on the right. And it doesn't make sense to include autonomists, anti-imperialists, or anarchists on the left.
The Founders for instance, were to a man libertarian (small "L") or as defined in their day simply 'liberal'. They were advocates of no more government than was absolutely necessary to bind the various states together as one nation and secure our rights. And then the government was to leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. They were 100% opposed to any form of monarchy, theocracy, or any other form of authoritarian government at the federal level.
So were they left or right?
Finally!! Yes!! I know there are many educated and informed people on this forum, but so few seem to post! You get it!! And not a lib on this Board can poke a hole in what you just posted.
Should it be enforced by the federal government? I don't think so because a one-size-fits-all big government policy for anything so personal always creates far more problems than it solves. But should the local community be able to form a society in which abortion is not an acceptable solution for unwanted pregnancies? Yes it should. That is the libertarian way.
Should it be enforced by the federal government? I don't think so because a one-size-fits-all big government policy for anything so personal always creates far more problems than it solves. But should the local community be able to form a society in which abortion is not an acceptable solution for unwanted pregnancies? Yes it should. That is the libertarian way.
Bam! This it exactly. I am not saying that abortion is not immoral, I am not saying that people should not see it as murder or the responsibility of the mother to carry to term a baby they created. I am saying it's not a legitimate use of government power to use force to make her do it.
To your point, churches, communities, individuals should take responsibility to teach her to avoid pregnancy, offer her hope and options and alternatives and counseling and whatever else they can do to persuade her to keep the baby, or at least deliver it and turn it over to someone who wants it.
If the two sides would work together to do that they would each solve a lot more than they do combined now.
I'm thinking that Marx actually got his ideas from the Founding Fathers. What you you think?It is always fascinating to me how ignorant so many are of the concepts embraced and promoted by the Founding Fathers. They dishonestly cherry pick comments from this or that--almost certainly copied and pasted from some pro-big-government, pro-progressive/liberal/statist/leftist/political class site--and hold them out as justification for progressivism/liberalis/statism/leftism/political class ideology.
But an honest and comprehensive study of the founding documents will show the Founding Fathers pretty much unified on what the 'general welfare' was intended to be. They saw the general welfare as that which benefits all citizens--rich and poor, landed and unlanded, young and old equally and without prejudice. They were almost universally unified that it was not within the prerogative of the federal government to use the people's money or resources to benefit any group, demographic, or special interest.
The purpose of the federal government was to facilitate the various states being able to function as one nation, to secure the unalienable rights of the people, to promote the general welfare, and to otherwise leave the people strictly alone to live their lives as they chose. The general welfare was what promoted the ability of the people to live their lives, choose their own destinies (liberty) and pursue happiness according to what that meant to each individual
And there you have libertarianism (small "L") in a nutshell.
Care to comment on these quotes from our founding fathers?
I really don't know. I have never read Marx and don't care what he said.
Fair answer. Given that, I will answer your question.
Madison was making a general statement. He did not make the sweeping statement that government can do anything it wants if it can justify it with the "common good." He meant that the common good is served when the Federal government does those things the Constitution Authorizes it to do. "The common good" isn't a power and he didn't mean it was.
Franklin said that people should not cheat on their taxes. He said that ... if ... government levies a just tax ... then ... that money is then the governments and people have no reasonable right to evade paying it.
I don't see how these quotes get you anywhere. I don't think you have a critical mind. Prove me wrong with a cogent response instead of a typical liberal one that ignored what I said.
